http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51447
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51570
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49847
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49599
--- Comment #2 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
09:18:40 UTC ---
FRE does not handle removal of redundant aggregate stores, so it does not
remove the aggregate assignment
*p_1(D) = l;
DSE does not handle redundant store removal either, and th
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51575
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49789
--- Comment #2 from revital.eres at linaro dot org 2011-12-16 09:24:27 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> Is this still an issue?
Yes, it still fails with -r182398.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
--- Comment #3 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
09:32:10 UTC ---
Reduced testcase:
struct T
{
virtual void m () { }
};
int
main ()
{
bool fn (T);
return 0;
}
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
--- Comment #4 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
09:41:06 UTC ---
We are streaming TYPE_BINFO of 'T', of that BINFO_VTABLE which is &_ZTV1T + 16
and when processing _ZTV1T:
unsigned DI
size
unit size
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dnovillo at gcc dot
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51568
--- Comment #4 from Eugene 2011-12-16 10:48:59
UTC ---
Enum can be packed to one byte with __attribute__((__packed__)) :
enum en { v0, v1, v2, v3, v4, v5, v6, v7 } __attribute__((__packed__));
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16635
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to fail||
--- Comment #16 from Jonathan Wakely
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
Bug #: 51576
Summary: [4.7 Regression] Bootstrap failure with go
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: ice-on-valid-code
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
11:15:12 UTC ---
Created attachment 26106
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26106
gcc47-pr51576.patch
Fix I'm going to bootstrap/regtest momentarily.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51437
David Krauss changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||potswa at mac dot com
--- Comment #4 from
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #3 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-12-16 11:55:04 UTC ---
Created attachment 26107
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26107
pr51572.i
% gcc -w -flto -g pr51572.i
lto1: internal compiler error: in dwarf2out_finish, at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51577
Bug #: 51577
Summary: dependent name lookup finds operator in global
namespace
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #4 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-12-16 12:12:37 UTC ---
Sorry, my check.sh script not optimal.
Here is a really reduced testcase:
% cat test.i
struct VdbeOpList
{
};
typedef struct VdbeOpList VdbeOpList;
sqlite3_blob_open ()
{
stat
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
--- Comment #6 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
12:13:55 UTC ---
It's a really messed up situation as with the C++ units
void
bar1 (void)
{
extern void foo (int);
foo (0);
}
---
void
bar2 (void)
{
extern void foo (int);
foo (0);
}
---
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49137
--- Comment #2 from Cezary Sliwa 2011-12-16
12:17:18 UTC ---
tar jxf gcc-4.5.3.tar.bz2
tar jxf gmp-4.3.2.tar.bz2
tar jxf mpfr-3.0.0.tar.bz2
tar zxf mpc-0.9.tar.gz
patch -p1 -d mpfr-3.0.0 ../libgmp.la
-rw-r--r-- 1 sliwa users 752 Dec 16 1
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
12:50:05 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #6)
> It's a really messed up situation as with the C++ units
>
> void
> bar1 (void)
> {
> extern void foo (int);
> foo (0);
> }
>
> ---
>
> void
> bar2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
Richard Guenther changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jason at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #7 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
13:16:19 UTC ---
At least the ICE we hit for the limbo node:
if (DECL_P (node->created_for))
context = DECL_CONTEXT (node->created_for);
else if (TYPE_P
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
13:21:40 UTC ---
Created attachment 26109
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26109
patch #2
Second patch that looks cleaner to me but runs into the C++ issue I mentioned.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
13:20:52 UTC ---
Created attachment 26108
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26108
patch #1
First patch that doesn't work (runs into PR51572, once that is fixed I'll
re-try).
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51578
Bug #: 51578
Summary: [4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.7 Regression]
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Keywords: rejects-valid
Severity:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #8 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
13:45:48 UTC ---
Without LTO we create the DIE for the TU level typedef via
debug_hooks->type_decl,
called from rest_of_decl_compilation which ultimately being dwarf2out_decl,
sets the context_die t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51562
--- Comment #4 from willus0 at hotmail dot com 2011-12-16 14:01:31 UTC ---
Thanks Richard and Manuel for prompting me to learn more about sequence points.
After 25 years of C programming, I've learned something new. A couple of
links I found help
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51578
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.3
--- Comment #1 from Tobias Burnus
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51579
Bug #: 51579
Summary: GCC should be able report a warning for usage of
parameters marked with __attribute__((unused))
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51578
Tobias Burnus changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P4
Summary|[4.3/4.4/4.5/4.6/4.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41951
--- Comment #9 from Tobias Burnus 2011-12-16
14:30:15 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #8)
> I failed to nail it in the standard, but I am sure that "12.4.3.4.5
> Restrictions on generic declarations" somehow must apply.
Thus I have now asked at
htt
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #9 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
14:31:35 UTC ---
Author: rguenth
Date: Fri Dec 16 14:31:14 2011
New Revision: 182401
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182401
Log:
2011-12-16 Richard Guenther
PR lto/515
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51579
--- Comment #1 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-16
14:38:40 UTC ---
I don't think we should start warning each time an __attribute__((unused))
parameter is actually used. In my experience that's absolutely common and
pervasive. If the parameter is mean
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-12-16 14:40:28 UTC ---
Even with your patch (and also changing the similar occurrence
a few lines below) and patch #1 from PR51573 libxul of Firefox
still fails to build with the same ICE.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #11 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-16 14:42:45 UTC ---
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
>
> --- Comment #10 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2011-12-16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-12-16 14:45:32 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
> >
> > --- Comment #10 from Mark
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #13 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-16 14:47:45 UTC ---
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
>
> --- Comment #12 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2011-12-16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-12-16 14:51:03 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #13)
> On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
>
> > http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
> >
> > --- Comment #12 from Mark
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #15 from rguenther at suse dot de
2011-12-16 14:53:34 UTC ---
On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, markus at trippelsdorf dot de wrote:
> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
>
> --- Comment #14 from Markus Trippelsdorf
> 2011-12-16
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51580
Bug #: 51580
Summary: [4.7 regression] segfault during loop vectorization at
-O3
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #16 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
15:13:27 UTC ---
For g++.dg/debug/pr45660.C we have a limbo DIE for 'T' which has DECL_CONTEXT
of the type 'S'. We create a DIE for 'S' when creating a DIE for the
FUNCTION_DECL 'i' which we do wh
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #2 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-16
15:19:55 UTC ---
On x86_64-apple-darwin11, the failure of...
FAIL: libitm.c/clone-1.c execution test
at -m32/-m64 appears to be due to the -pie linker default when targeting
darwin11.
If I append -Wl,
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
15:20:38 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 15:20:35 2011
New Revision: 182403
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182403
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51576
* tree-cfg.c (re
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51557
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
15:21:52 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 15:21:48 2011
New Revision: 182404
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182404
Log:
PR debug/51557
* sel-sched-ir.c (create_cop
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51579
--- Comment #2 from Yann Droneaud 2011-12-16 15:25:41
UTC ---
(In reply to comment #1)
> I don't think we should start warning each time an __attribute__((unused))
> parameter is actually used. In my experience that's absolutely common and
> perv
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51572
--- Comment #17 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
15:28:35 UTC ---
It'll take me a while to do the necessary pre-reorg of streaming TREE_CHAIN
for FIELD_DECLs -> next week.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51573
--- Comment #10 from Richard Guenther 2011-12-16
15:31:02 UTC ---
Patch #1 now passes LTO bootstrap, I'll schedule a SPEC2k6 build and commit
early next week if that succeeds. Feels more like baby-steps incrementally
improving the -flto -g situa
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #3 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-16
15:44:36 UTC ---
Could the memcpy-1.exe/memset-1.exe execution failures be related to those seen
on i386-pc-solaris2.9?
http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-testresults/2011-12/msg01261.html
We also seem to shar
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51579
--- Comment #3 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-16
15:45:15 UTC ---
To be clear, I didn't mean to imply that somebody here is going to add unnamed
parameters to C, only, that apparently *you* are seeing attribute((unused)) as
something meant to solve t
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51557
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51579
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #4 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51581
Bug #: 51581
Summary: Integer division by constant is not vectorized
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Pri
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49084
--- Comment #24 from Anh Vo 2011-12-16 16:24:19
UTC ---
Indeed, the build went smoothly. Thank you all specially Eric Botcazou for
fixing this issue.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51581
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
16:25:26 UTC ---
Created attachment 26111
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26111
div2.c
Testcase where f1-f6 are normal integer division loops and f7-f12 the same
division rewritten
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51582
Bug #: 51582
Summary: ICE when using a class with a matrix of complex
numbers in C++0x mode
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.2
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51575
--- Comment #1 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
16:37:00 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 16:36:49 2011
New Revision: 182409
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182409
Log:
PR tree-optimization/51575
* g++.dg/opt/pr5
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51575
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51576
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||zsojka at seznam dot cz
--- Comment #4 fr
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51583
Bug #: 51583
Summary: One more missing force_gimple_operand in SRA
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #24 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-12-16 16:56:55 UTC ---
> --- Comment #23 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-07
> 09:21:16 UTC ---
> Can't reproduce with i686-linux x mips-sgi-irix6.5 cross either.
I could, on Centos 5 (x86_
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51582
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Keywords|
received signal EXC_BAD_ACCESS, Could not access memory.
Reason: KERN_PROTECTION_FAILURE at address: 0x
0xa074 in ITM_WU4 (this=, ptr=0x0, val=1) at
../../../../gcc-4.7-20111216/libitm/method-serial.cc:90
90 CREATE_DISPATCH_METHODS(virtual, )
(gdb) bt
#0 0xa074 in ITM_WU4 (this
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=39400
Denis Excoffier changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||g...@denis-excoffier.org
--- Comment #4
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #6 from Jack Howarth 2011-12-16
17:45:38 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> Right, I'm seeing exactly the same output for libitm.c/memcpy-1.c and
> libitm.c/memset-1.c on 32-bit Solaris 8-11/x86, and also in an
> i686-unknown-linux-gn
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
Rainer Orth changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target|hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11 |hppa2.0w-hp-hpux11.11,
|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #3 from Rainer Orth 2011-12-16 17:50:33 UTC
---
Created attachment 26114
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26114
proposed minimal patch
With this patch, the only remaining TM failure on Tru64 UNIX is
FAIL: libitm.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51124
--- Comment #7 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-12-16 17:55:22 UTC ---
> What sort of backtrace in gdb do you get on 32-bit Solaris 8-11/x86 for the
> execution failure
> in the libitm.c++/eh-1.C test?
This one:
[Thread debugging usi
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51503
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51072
Joseph S. Myers changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||steven at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson 2011-12-16
18:00:43 UTC ---
While that might solve the ICE, the clone table doesn't actually
get registered, which is why that clone-1 test case still fails.
You'll need to play with collect2 and all its mag
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51252
--- Comment #5 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE 2011-12-16 18:04:23 UTC ---
> --- Comment #4 from Richard Henderson 2011-12-16
> 18:00:43 UTC ---
> While that might solve the ICE, the clone table doesn't actually
> get registered, which i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51584
Bug #: 51584
Summary: Errorneous compilation when deriving from an
inaccessible friend class.
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.6.1
Status: UNCONFI
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=16635
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
--- Comment #8 from Kai Tietz 2011-12-16 18:43:11
UTC ---
Author: ktietz
Date: Fri Dec 16 18:43:06 2011
New Revision: 182410
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182410
Log:
PR libstdc++/51135
* libsupc++/unwind-
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51135
Kai Tietz changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|REOPENED|RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51331
Jason Merrill changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
AssignedTo|unassigned at
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51540
--- Comment #12 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-12-16 18:59:31 UTC ---
Additionally, and also for the default operator form, it is unclear what the
result is when the operator is noncommutative. That is, whether y[n+1] is set
to x[n+1]+y[n] or
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50803
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
19:13:49 UTC ---
Created attachment 26115
--> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=26115
gcc47-pr50803.patch
Patch lightly tested with crosses to 32-bit hppa-hpux and hppa-linux and 64-bit
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49237
--- Comment #2 from Wouter Vermaelen
2011-12-16 19:28:36 UTC ---
I also can't reproduce it anymore.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50444
--- Comment #9 from Martin Jambor 2011-12-16
19:35:07 UTC ---
I have just discovered this has not been fixed by the patch to dela with PR
50569. I'm moving this to the top of my todo list now.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51584
--- Comment #1 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
19:58:58 UTC ---
I think this is related to PR 47346.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50686
--- Comment #25 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
20:05:16 UTC ---
Can you try the patch in PR 51471#c11 ? That patch fixes most of the
maybe_record_trace_start on mips* for me.
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50833
Andrew Pinski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51471
--- Comment #12 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
20:07:23 UTC ---
(In reply to comment #11)
> This is the patch which I am testing:
I ran into a bootstrap miscompare which is caused by an assembler bug
(http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?i
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51585
Bug #: 51585
Summary: [4.7 Regression] verify_flow_info failed ICE with
virtual inheritance
Classification: Unclassified
Product: gcc
Version: 4.7.0
Status: UNCONFIRM
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51585
Volker Reichelt changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Target Milestone|--
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51540
--- Comment #13 from Paolo Carlini 2011-12-16
20:16:16 UTC ---
Up to Jon to decide which details he wants to add to the docs, but please
always keep in mind that in the areas where the behavior isn't implementation
defined only the ISO Standard (
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50803
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek 2011-12-16
20:16:28 UTC ---
Author: jakub
Date: Fri Dec 16 20:16:23 2011
New Revision: 182411
URL: http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=182411
Log:
PR testsuite/50803
* gcc.dg/ipa/inline-5.c:
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=50803
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC|
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51585
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #1 f
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51585
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski 2011-12-16
20:25:09 UTC ---
Was this after:
2011-12-12 Dmitry Vyukov
* cgraphunit.c (init_lowered_empty_function): Fix flags for new edges.
But not before the revert of it?
http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51540
--- Comment #14 from Christopher Yeleighton
2011-12-16 20:31:24 UTC ---
I would rather prefer to be able to use gcc (as a software developer) while not
having the ISO standard, which is 1) unreadable with an unarmed eye, 2) not
free (as in anythi
1 - 100 of 137 matches
Mail list logo
